Trish Crossin (NT, Australian Labor Party) Share this | Hansard source

I rise in support of this motion and I want to provide some comments as to why that is the case. Let us have another quick look at the beginning of the negotiations around this bill, and let us get on record clearly what is meant by consultation and what is simply meeting the land councils with draft amendments so that they can have a cursory look and a scan over what is proposed, rather than entering into genuine negotiations with this government.

We know that around the 2003-2004 mark the Northern Territory government entered into discussions with the land councils over the changes to this bill, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Amendment Bill 2006, consisting of the workability and the mining, exploration and leasing sections. We know that a document that had the agreement of the Minerals Council and the land councils was sent to Minister Ruddock. My understanding is that the federal government were quite keen to approve and amend the act in accordance with the major stakeholders in the Territory, who had undertaken that long and extensive piece of work.

Then we had the Northern Territory government’s proposal that they would pick up on an idea that I think was mentioned at a conference in Jabiru by David Ross of the Central Land Council in relation to the 99-year lease proposal. My understanding is that it was one of many ideas that were put forward at that conference as a way of advancing economic development on Indigenous land. It is interesting that that is the one proposal that they picked up out of all of the many others that Mr Ross spoke about.

We know that there is a third tranche of amendments to this act—amendments about which there has not been full and frank consultation with Indigenous people and land councils. I refer to the ability of other Aboriginal corporations and associations to establish land councils in the Territory; the ability of the minister to compulsorily demand that land councils transfer some of their functions to these new bodies or corporations if they get established; that land councils will be required to be more accountable than they currently are in terms of their outputs and workloads; that land councils in fact will not be funded by at least 40 per cent of the Aboriginals Benefit Account but by a yearly grant at the behest of the Commonwealth government. We know that the land councils may well have been shown these amendments, but they were never, ever invited to engage in full, frank and honest negotiations about the changes to the land rights act.

We can talk about how ‘we have consulted Indigenous people’—and we strongly disagree with that. We can talk about how ‘this is an opportunity for Aboriginal people in the future to develop economic wealth and homeownership and advance their lot in life in this country’. But let us be really honest about what this means from this federal government. This is about a policy of assimilation. This is not about self-determination; this is about saying to Indigenous people in this country—and this bill applies only to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory—‘You have to behave like whitefellas in this country. If your lot in life is going to improve, you need to jump on the bandwagon that all of us non-Indigenous people aspire to, and that is to own your own home.’

Indigenous people do not aspire to that. They live in quite a different cultural world. There are some out there who want to do that. I know of Indigenous people on Groote Eylandt who work at the GEMCO mine, who earn quite a lot of money and who would be keen to own their own home. But they can already do that under the existing section 19 provisions of the land rights act. This is about saying to Indigenous people: ‘If you really want to be a true Australian, you’ve got to act like the rest of us. And we all know that we think the first thing you’ve got to do to actually prove you’re successful is to own your own home.’ Well, that is not a measure of success for Indigenous people, but this government just does not get it.

What they ought to get is this: the one thing that Indigenous people hang on to, are proud of and want to maintain, not for 100 years or thousands of years but for tens of thousands of years, is their critical and vital link to the land. That is the core of their being. That is why they exist. They have an intrinsic relationship with the land, just as any Catholic has when they see the sign of the cross. It is the same spiritual relationship. Their land determines who they are in life, how they behave, who they marry, what language they speak and where they can and cannot go. That is why we have sacred sites. That is why we have restrictions around places like Uluru—not because it is a big rock in the middle of the desert and we do not want hundreds of thousands of tourists to destroy it each year but because it is the heart of the spiritual beliefs and operations of people in Central Australia.

This government just does not get it. So the very first time it wants to get up and butcher the Aboriginal land rights act, what is the very essence that it attacks? The land leasing provisions under this act, which provide the right for people to keep their title. But Aboriginal people want more than to keep their title. Really, it is a bit of a furphy for people to say, ‘You will still keep the title over your land,’ when it has been their land for 40,000 years. It was their land before we ever heard of Captain Cook or Matthew Flinders. It has always been their land; it has always been their title. It was not until whitefellas decided to emigrate from England and Ireland that we decided that it was not their land anymore. But it has always been their land. They do not understand the argument that they have to go through our courts of law to prove what was always theirs.

Now we are saying to them: ‘We’ve come up with a really good idea here. You’re the poorest people in the country; you desperately need more houses. We’ll provide you with a secondary boarding college on the Tiwi Islands because the other one is so badly run down that it ought to be bulldozed, but we’re only going to give it to you if you decide to give us your land under 99-year leases.’ Which means what? I questioned Mr Bree from the Northern Territory government and Mr Stacey from the OIPC but no-one could give us the details about this. No-one actually has the fine print. If you ask a different person on a different day: ‘What does giving up a 99-year lease to your township mean?’ you will get a different answer. Some people will say, ‘We haven’t quite defined what a township is for a place like Nguiu or a place like Galiwinku.’

Where do the boundaries start and end in terms of the township? Who is going to pay for the extra infrastructure if 50 new houses are built on a land lease at Elcho Island? Who is going to pay for the extra sewage works or the electricity upgrades that will be needed in that community to service those new houses? I heard someone say last week, ‘Oh gee, that’s a problem we haven’t thought of.’ The local community council has not been involved in these discussions; the Northern Territory government have not thought about it; certainly the federal government have not thought about it. But I bet you London to a brick that if any of those communities sign on the dotted line for a 99-year lease this mob will run a mile and will not be prepared to put one extra cent into providing more sewage works or more electricity on Bathurst Island. The Tiwi Islands Local Government told me when I went there two weeks ago that it is a serious problem when you have this idea floating around in the heads of some bureaucrats and ministers from the federal government.

The local government does not have the money to pay for the new infrastructure. The Northern Territory government have not thought about it and are probably struggling to exist under their current budget. The view is: ‘Oh, I know, we’ve got the Aboriginals Benefit Account; let’s draw on that. There’s $100 million sitting in that account; let’s draw down on that.’ The government see that as a great slush fund in order to opt out of their responsibility to provide infrastructure and basic services to Indigenous people. The ABA was never and should never be used for that purpose. It should be used to negotiate gas pipelines. It should be used to negotiate train lines that run from Darwin to Alice Springs, as it has been used in the past—projects that provide genuine, long-term benefits and economic development for Indigenous people. It should not be used to build 50 new houses in a place like Elcho Island.

As a non-Indigenous person in this community, I am not asked to give up my land in order to provide basic infrastructure services. I do not have shares in any company, but if I did have I would not be asked to dip into the shares of any company that I might hold or any benefits I have from any company to pay for basic infrastructure services, but that is what we are asking Indigenous people to do. The Aboriginals Benefit Account has been set up to hold money that people have rightly obtained from the royalties from mining. It is their money to be used as they wish. It is not money to be used by the federal government to replace basic infrastructure and services. It should not be used by the government as an excuse to opt out of their obligation to put houses, health centres or boarding schools in communities. But that is what the government want to do and they are using this legislation as a way to get around that.

The other thing I want to say about the 99-year lease system is this: the government will put their hand on their heart and say: ‘We do not want to touch the permit system on Indigenous land. There is nothing in this bill that specifically amends the act to abolish the permit system.’ But if you actually think about the 99-year lease, where people will give up a township like Nguiu, they will not have any control over who comes and goes and they will not have any control over what establishments will be built there or not built there. Effectively, you do abolish the permit system. You cannot have what is in the little dream bubble of the federal government in this chamber—an opening up of lands on Indigenous communities—without effectively destroying the permit system. These are the kinds of negotiations that we believe ought to take place with Indigenous people. Some people in the Public Service will say to me, ‘Traditional owners will be able to negotiate certain conditions on certain leases.’ Are you telling me that the people on Elcho Island will have a right of veto over who sets up a business in their community? Is that what you are telling me? The answer is: ‘We are not really sure; we have not quite worked out whether they will have that level of control.’

These are the kinds of things that we are saying to the federal government. Let us put a brake on this bill. Let us put a hold on this legislation. Let us run with those amendments we know have been negotiated and agreed between the major parties and let us take the time to put this bill off for a couple of months, to December perhaps—as Senator Evans said, we are not asking for this bill to be put off for years, just months—while Indigenous people get to ask those questions and while we get it really sorted out in our heads what getting a 99-year lease over your township really means. What right of veto do you still have as a traditional owner? Why is it that any profits from a 99-year lease will be held by a Northern Territory entity rather than going back into the community to be disbursed between traditional owners? Why is that not a proposal that has been discussed and negotiated? Indigenous people have not had a chance to put those ideas and those views down on paper.

We talk about a Northern Territory government entity that will hold and manage these land leases. This will be, I think, the first time in a very long time in this Senate chamber that we are agreeing to legislation that relies on consequential legislation which we have not yet seen. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Legislation Committee is looking at a bill to replace the Aboriginal Councils and Associations Act and we have put a hold on that bill because it relies on transitional legislation which we have not seen. The government have agreed to that. They have actually said to the committee: ‘You can extend your reporting date until you have seen the transitional legislation. Take your time over this. This is significant; this is important. Let us take our time and do it properly.’ But when it comes to Indigenous people in the Northern Territory who will rely on the land leases to be held by a Northern Territory entity or authority, we have not seen that legislation. Who sits on that authority? Who will be responsible for that authority? The Chief Minister? Another minister in the Territory? Will there be dual authority and responsibility to the federal government? What powers will this authority have? What accountability back to traditional owners will they have? Will land councils be on this authority? Will traditional owners be represented on this authority? We cannot answer any of those questions.

I bet if I ask Minister Kemp those questions now he still would not know, because I do not think it has been worked out. So why should we be asked to put legislation through this chamber that requires Indigenous people to give up their land for 99 years? Why should we ask them to do that when we do not know the details? We do not know how it is going to operate. We do not know the cost. We do know, though, that for every area of land that will be surveyed in order to be leased we are looking at at least $1 million to undertake the survey. No-one has plotted the land and townships on Indigenous communities yet. They do not have township plots and lots. They do not have zoned areas. That is all going to have to happen and it will take big bucks to do that—big bucks when Indigenous people are really saying to us: ‘If you have a plan for this country, don’t put us in a position where you will make us give up our land to have basic infrastructure services. Put the money into health, education and jobs growth rather than this thought bubble that our lot in life can seriously improve if we have to give up our land to you whitefellas for 99 years.’ It is not going to work and it is not going to be viable.

If this federal government believes that it has undertaken the best, the brightest and the most thorough consultation that ever existed in relation to this act, why is it that Anindilyakwa Land Council on Groote Eylandt and the Tiwi Land Council did not bother to appear before the Senate committee? They did not have one person who was able to appear before the Senate committee and champion how great this new proposal will be. We know that those two land councils like this idea. They have a very small, discrete area of land in which to start to trade and negotiate. But they might also have some ideas that can be shared with other Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. But this is a government that is not going to allow Indigenous people the time to enter into some serious negotiations about these changes.

Our suggestion to split the bill simply says that: put through the changes that you actually believe will be beneficial to Indigenous people and that they agree to and want to happen, and let us take our time and put through the other changes to the legislation after there has been some serious negotiation and consultation, after questions have been asked, after the fine print has been examined and after we have seen the Northern Territory consequential legislation that puts in place a Northern Territory entity.

Debate interrupted.